Every year we donate to the California State Sea Otter Fund on our California tax return. Please consider doing the same. NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 23, 2011 SEA OTTERS – AND THE STATE’S SEA OTTER FUND – NEED YOUR HELP TODAY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Even a $1 income donation on your state income taxes can [...]

Every year we donate to the California State Sea Otter Fund on our California tax return. Please consider doing the same.

NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 23, 2011

SEA OTTERS – AND THE STATE’S SEA OTTER

FUND – NEED YOUR HELP TODAY

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Even a $1 income donation on your state income taxes can

keep the fund alive and help protect an iconic marine mammal

California’s sea otters face grave threats and the state fund that contributes to their research and recovery is equally in danger if voluntary taxpayer contributions fall short in 2011. Animal aficionados in California must donate nearly $261,000 to sea otter conservation through their state income tax form in order to keep the fund alive in coming years.

“The fund supports critical research projects, so we hope Californians will come through once again as the tax deadline approaches,” said Andrew Johnson, manager of the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Sea Otter Research and Conservation program.

The money raised by the fund – just over $1million in the past four years – supports researchers and agencies working together to understand the impacts threatening the survival of California sea otters, including infectious disease, oil spills, limited food supplies and degradation of coastal waters where otters live, and how we can aid this population’s recovery.

“Last year, our sea otter population faced its second decline in the three-year average in over a decade,” said Jim Curland, marine program associate for Defenders of Wildlife. “This fund is too important to sea otter conservation to let go. Past contributions show that Californians love their sea otters. We hope they can really rally together this year.”

In 2010, the three-year average sea otter population was just 2,711 animals – well below the 3,090-animal threshold required to consider moving sea otters off the endangered species list and an estimated one-fifth of the historic population.

Heading into the final days before the April 18 filing deadline, Californians can support efforts to save this keystone species by contributing to the California Sea Otter Fund (Code 410) on their state income tax form.There’s no upper limit to the amount taxpayers can designate for sea otters, starting from a minimum contribution of $1. All contributions through the tax form are voluntary.

Californians who’ve already filed their income taxes but who would like to donate funds can visit the Monterey Bay Aquarium websiteand click on the “Save the Oceans” link to support the Aquarium’s many efforts to save sea otters.

The mission of the nonprofit Monterey Bay Aquarium is to inspire conservation of the oceans.

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members and activists, it’s a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come.

-30-

Have I ever considered going straight vegetarian? Yes, briefly, but since the main sources of non-meat protein seem to be mushrooms and tofu and I'm not terribly fond of either, I'll stick with my own dietary philosophy which I have named… Grazing lamb Nonmammaltarianism. It means I'll eat poultry and seafood and other non-mammal meat [...]

Have I ever considered going straight vegetarian? Yes, briefly, but since the main sources of non-meat protein seem to be mushrooms and tofu and I'm not terribly fond of either, I'll stick with my own dietary philosophy which I have named…

Grazing lamb

Nonmammaltarianism.



It means I'll eat poultry and seafood and other non-mammal meat (including, once, reptile) but not meat from mammals. No beef, pork, lamb, venison, mutton, etc.



This is not really a dietary or health issue except that not eating mammal means I'm not eating factory-farmed beef or pork. It's more of a philosophical thing: I don't want to eat anything that thinks. Cows and pigs are too close to people and I'm frankly horrified by how they are slaughtered for market.



Not eating mammal, especially pork and beef, does make eating out more challenging and I'm afraid it sometimes puts too much stress on others who will worry about picking someplace where there's something on the menu I can eat. To that I say: please don't worry. Even at a place like Incanto, which specializes in animal parts I wouldn't eat even if I were a full-on carnivore, there are seafood and vegetarian dishes on the menu.

Perhaps I should just abandon the pretense of training for a 5K and call it “10K training” or “half marathon training”. Reasoning below. Week 2: Day 1 (Wednesday): Supposed to do 2 miles, did 1.75 miles on treadmill in 26 minutes. Started slow and ran out of time. Day 2 (Friday): Supposed to do 2 [...]

Perhaps I should just abandon the pretense of training for a 5K and call it “10K training” or “half marathon training”. Reasoning below.

Week 2:
Day 1 (Wednesday): Supposed to do 2 miles, did 1.75 miles on treadmill in 26 minutes. Started slow and ran out of time.
Day 2 (Friday): Supposed to do 2 miles, did 2 miles on treadmill in 27:28.
Day 3 (Sunday): Supposed to do 2.5 miles, did 3.5 miles outside in 41:59 because I missed a turn.

So for two weeks in a row, I’ve run over 5K distance in reasonable time (for me) without stopping to walk.

Dear Senator Boxer, First, let me congratulate you on your recent electoral victory. The importance of having you in Washington representing California’s interests, especially considering the alternative, cannot be overstated. I’m writing to express my extreme concern and distress over the Transportation Security Agency’s new policies of whole-body imaging and “enhanced” pat-downs at airport checkpoints. [...]

Dear Senator Boxer,

First, let me congratulate you on your recent electoral victory. The importance of having you in Washington representing California’s interests, especially considering the alternative, cannot be overstated.

I’m writing to express my extreme concern and distress over the Transportation Security Agency’s new policies of whole-body imaging and “enhanced” pat-downs at airport checkpoints.

As you must be aware, the whole-body imaging scanners use ionizing radiation to photograph travelers through their clothes, creating a clear image of their naked bodies. TSA claims that these images “cannot be stored or transmitted” have already been proven false. There are no exemptions for children of any age going through these machines and TSA regulations do not exclude from employment convicted sexual abusers whose crime was more than ten years ago.

If a traveller “opts out” of having their naked x-ray photograph taken, they are instead subject to what TSA calls an “enhanced” pat-down, wherein the traveler’s entire body is groped, squeezed and manhandled, including genitalia and women’s breasts. Again, there is no exemption for children, and recent reports show children as young as three years old being subjected to these procedures. In any context, unwanted contact of this kind is rightly termed sexual abuse.

Senator, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In no way can the act of purchasing an airline ticket or attempting to board a plane be “probable cause” absent any other suspicion. Certainly no Warrants for these invasive and unreasonable searches are issued before the searches are performed.

TSA agents have stated that travelers “give up their rights when purchasing a plane ticket,” but our Declaration of Independence is very clear in that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” which cannot be abjured by any government agency.

I see that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold a hearing on Thursday, November 17, 2010, and TSA Administrator Pistole is scheduled to testify. I hope and plead with you, Senator, to question Administrator Pistole on these new procedures, and to take whatever action you can to see that they are abated, and soon.

Respectfully yours,

Andrew Rich
116 Mission Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
650-270-5863
andrew.rich@project-insomnia.com

Update: I know that there are two varieties of naked body scanners, and only one uses ionizing radiation; the other uses radio frequencies. I’m sure the Senator is or will be aware of this as well. It wasn’t an intentional omission.

…but I do. For your edification and amusement, my choices and selected commentary on today’s general election ballot. Governor: Jerry Brown. Lt. Governor: Gavin Newsom. Secretary of State: Debra Bowen, on the strength of her investigation of electronic voting machines. Controller: John Chiang, based on his opposition to Schwarzenegger’s government furloughs. Treasurer: Bill Lockyer. Attorney [...]

…but I do. For your edification and amusement, my choices and selected commentary on today’s general election ballot.

Governor: Jerry Brown.
Lt. Governor: Gavin Newsom.
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen, on the strength of her investigation of electronic voting machines.
Controller: John Chiang, based on his opposition to Schwarzenegger’s government furloughs.
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer.
Attorney General: Kamela Harris.
Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones.
Member, State Board of Equalization, District 1: Betty Yee, because I liked her candidate statement.
United States Senator: Barbara Boxer.
United States Representative, 14th Congressional District: Anna Eshoo.
Member of the State Assembly, 21st Assembly District: Rich Gordon, mostly because of his opponent’s opposition to the California High Speed Rail project.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Larry Aceves, because on comparing the candidate statements, his background seems more appropriate to the position.
Judicial retentions: No on every single one of them, partially because they wimped out on 2008′s Prop 8 and also so Governor Brown can get his choice of new judges.
Member, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, 3rd District: April Vargas.
San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector: Dave Mandelkern, on the strength of candidate statements and endorsements.
Members, City of East Palo Alto City Council: David E. Woods and Ruben Abrica. Both are incumbents, and my longstanding dislike of East Palo Alto city government officials has been moderated somewhat since street repair projects in our area are finally underway.
Members, Board of Commissioners, San Mateo County Harbor District: No vote. There are no candidate statements and I know nothing about the candidates.

Propositions: I have a general bias against initiative constitutional amendments because I don’t agree with the process ( see 2008′s Prop 8 ) of amending the state constitution by simple majority of popular vote. I will often determine my choice by seeing who’s for and against the initiative in question — when wingnuts, tea partiers and out-of-state corporate interests are against it, I’m probably for it.
Prop 19: Yes.
Prop 20: Yes. A citizen commission, presumed to be nonpartisan, seems like a reasonable way to handle district lines. I also like that this initiative consolidates all redistricting (state and congressional) to this commission.
Prop 21: Yes. Overall it appears to be a good idea, though I have concerns about how funds formerly allocated to the state parks will be used. The fact that “Americans For Prosperity” (the tea party corporate backers) are against is all I need to know
Prop 22: No. It looks good in principle, but on closer examination it seems unnecessary given initiatives (both named Prop 1A) passed in 2004 and 2006.
Prop 23: No. There’s just no way this can be a good idea, plus look at who’s supporting it.
Prop 24: Yes. I can’t understand how it made sense to make this change to business tax policy in the first place. Repealing it makes sense.
Prop 25: Yes. You only have to look at how the state legislature stalls, deadlocked, on the budget every single year to know that current structure is insane. A simple majority in the legislature is all that should be needed for almost anything.
Prop 26: No. In addition to its backers being against Prop 25, I see no reason to change the current structure.
Prop 27: No. See Prop 20; this is its opposite.
San Mateo County Measure M: No. This seems like a lazy cash grab. The ballot question includes nine separate proposed uses of the funds, all of which are so nonspecific as to mean almost anything.
San Mateo County Measure U: Yes. It seems to streamline an existing process and saves money.

I based my choices almost entirely on the Official Voter Information Pamphlet and General Election Voter Guide. SmartVoter.org was also quite useful.

(What’s this about baby stoats voting?)